SafeSpace.. your thoughts

[Killtek]

I can't recall the poster, but someone on here turned me on to Artificial Dynamics SafeSpace sandbox program. I've been running it for several weeks and I'm happy with it.

I have one concern.. why is SafeSpace never mentioned in the same subject line or topic with Sandboxie, DW, GESwall etc... Is SafeSpace in the same class as the aforementioned or is it just not good enough to be mentioned?

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "I have one concern.. why is SafeSpace never mentioned in the same subject line or topic with Sandboxie, DW, GESwall etc... Is SafeSpace in the same class as the aforementioned or is it just not good enough to be mentioned?" }-

I've used SafeSpace, SandboxIE & GESwall - I liked SafeSpace (SS) the best. One reason it doesn't get a lot of play here is some people don't like that SS needs Microsoft .NET, but this is a non-issue for me. SS did impact performance on my system a little, but if it's working well for you then don't worry. It's good software.

[Kees1958]

Rest asure,

It is good program with a smart architecture (cross over of application virtualisation like SBIE and Policy sandbox like GeSWall). I would choose it over SBIE (nag screen and GUI)

[InVitroVeritas]

I, too, have switched from SBIE to SafeSpace. I don't really found that it slowed my computers, even on an somewhat oldish Athlon 1600.

[mrfargoreed]

-{ Quote: "Is SafeSpace in the same class as the aforementioned or is it just not good enough to be mentioned?" }-
SafeSpace certainly seems to be in the same class (from reading several posts here at Wilders). There has been one post here at Wilders where SafeSpace was tested against some nasties and did extremely well, yet few seemed to even notice. I guess many users are happy with SBIE, DW and Geswall and see no need to change. And as Kees1958 says - no nag screens, no registration, no trial and totally FREE.

-{ Quote: "It is good program with a smart architecture (cross over of application virtualisation like SBIE and Policy sandbox like GeSWall). I would choose it over SBIE (nag screen and GUI)" }-
Me too. Been using it for a few months now and far prefer it to SBIE - I find it easier to configure, easier to use and the display easier to read.

-{ Quote: "I, too, have switched from SBIE to SafeSpace. I don't really found that it slowed my computers, even on an somewhat oldish Athlon 1600." }-
Doesn't slow my machine, either, any more than SBIE did last time I tried the last version. Some have said that it slows their startup, but not for me.

I also find it strange that SafeSpace doesn't seem to get deserved recognition, perhaps purely for the fact that it may be a little more resource hungry than SBIE. Still, if users are happy with SBIE then that's fine. I used to be a user of SBIE myself until I discovered SafeSpace. It'll take a lot for me to change from SafeSpace now, I must admit.

[Matern]

SS is the best (Security)- Programm that I have ever used, all the other Programms are for testing or playing and if you uninstall all the other "useless" things, nothing will be slow down anymore.

[muf]

-{ Quote: "if you uninstall all the other "useless" things, nothing will be slow down anymore." }-

Oh dear! Another one who thinks they've found the 'silver bullet'. :-\

muf

[Matern]

@ muf

No, the absolute truth is to use nothing, because no Software can protect you, but SS give me the best feeling at surfing and keep my Harddrive clean.

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "Oh dear! Another one who thinks they've found the 'silver bullet'. :-\

muf" }-


Do you not think that for some SafeSpace alone might be adequate ? If so what minimum requirements would suffice ?

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "SS did impact performance on my system a little, but if it's working well for you then don't worry. It's good software." }-

I would imagine that all of these programs have some overhead ? On an old machine I certainly found that the first time I went on to the net with firefox and sandboxie that it took a number of extra seconds.

The OP is surprised by the lack of coverage for SafeSpace. I'm even more intrigued by the lack of coverage for GesWall - by far the best of this type that I have tried. Strange how some programs get adopted and others tend to get ignored.

[muf]

You are right, but you are also wrong. When you say "no software can protect you". You would be right saying that no software is guaranteed to protect you. But software can protect you. Using one application to protect you is risky. If you have an image backup of your system then you have that to fall back to in the event of the 'unthinkable'. But why risk it all using one application? I've never seen a single application that can do it all, and guarantee protection. So most users have a second line of defense in case their main one gets compromised. Of course, some have a third line, a fourth line, fifth line... But I can't imagine using only one. For me the risk would be too great.

muf

[Matern]

Muf, if your System is on the latest Patch-Level and if you have hardened it there is not much that can happen if your brain stands beside you.

My second line are OnDemand scans of new files and the third line is sitting behind the machine.

The only thing you can try to do is to fix unclosed Security holes and that is what SS is make for.

If you run a dozen of Security apps, your security holes are bigger than before, because the Software is fighting with themself and not with the Malware.

[muf]

-{ Quote: "Muf, if your System is on the latest Patch-Level and if you have hardened it there is not much that can happen if your brain stands beside you.

My second line are OnDemand scans of new files and the third line is sitting behind the machine.

The only thing you can try to do is to fix unclosed Security holes and that is what SS is make for.

If you run a dozen of Security apps, your security holes are bigger than before, because the Software is fighting with themself and not with the Malware." }-

You seem pretty clued up so I suspect you've got your bases covered. Just hope SS never fails.

-{ Quote: "Do you not think that for some SafeSpace alone might be adequate ? If so what minimum requirements would suffice ?" }-

It appears that way for Matern. As to minimum requirements. I don't believe such a thing exists. I certainly wouldn't feel secure using one application but then that's me. If others feel one application is enough then good luck to them and I sincerely hope it works. I'd love to be able to run one application, hell none would be better! But layered still feels safer. Obviously, in moderation. I don't for one second believe running a gazillion application's simultaneously is healthy and as Matern has pointed out, can actually make you less safe. But I do advocate the use of a 'Plan B'.

Matern, I hope it works for you. If it proves to be the 'silver bullet' then I'm well happy for you.

muf

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "I can't recall the poster, but someone on here turned me on to Artificial Dynamics SafeSpace sandbox program. I've been running it for several weeks and I'm happy with it.

I have one concern.. why is SafeSpace never mentioned in the same subject line or topic with Sandboxie, DW, GESwall etc... Is SafeSpace in the same class as the aforementioned or is it just not good enough to be mentioned?" }-
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=199167&highlight=safespace+impressions

These are my thoughts. :)

[mrfargoreed]

-{ Quote: "There has been one post here at Wilders where SafeSpace was tested against some nasties and did extremely well" }-
Ah, aigle, it was you :thumb:

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "

As to minimum requirements. I don't believe such a thing exists. I certainly wouldn't feel secure using one application but then that's me. If others feel one application is enough then good luck to them and I sincerely hope it works.

" }-

I agree - it is a personal thing - each has different minimum requirements
which is why I always ask how often someone gets contaminated ? do they know how it happened and so on. If someone is constantly being successfully attached then clearly action needs to be taken but I would still argue that for many something like SafeSpace (and a good imaging program) is more than enough. I would certainly not feel secure without a clean system image.

[Rasheed187]

I will tell you what I don´t like:

1 Main GUI takes like 10 to 15 seconds to load.
2 You can´t install apps into sandbox.
3 You have to first mark apps as "protected".

What I´m trying to say is that, yes it seems to be quite powerful, but it annoys the hell out of me! When it comes to usability, SBIE is a lot better IMO. :)

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "
2 You can´t install apps into sandbox." }-Use ur VM, not SafeSpace for this.-{ Quote: "
3 You have to first mark apps as "protected".
" }-
U don,t mind while clicking n clikcing on two classical HIPS prompts in real time on ur system but it gives u pain to just add an application once only in SafeSpace application list. Very strage n odd!

[Tidyup]

Hi Rasheed.

Thank you for your feedback.

-{ Quote: "
1 Main GUI takes like 10 to 15 seconds to load.
" }-

A fair point, but the GUI is only required for configuration, not for usage. We provide a systray for quick access to commonly used features.

-{ Quote: "
2 You can´t install apps into sandbox.
" }-

In the context of what SafeSpace is for, I don't feel this is an important feature. Could you expand on why you feel this is necessary when browsing the web?

-{ Quote: "
3 You have to first mark apps as "protected".
" }-

How does Sandboxie work differently?

Best regards,

Kris.

Artificial Dynamics.

[trjam]

to me, they are not as closely related as some think. As far as protection I think SafeSpace is better at this and provides more blanket coverage across other apps. I agree, the gui loading is not important. SafeSpace is a great product and as I have said before, if I could only choose one security app, SS would fit the bill.

[Rasheed187]

-{ Quote: "A fair point, but the GUI is only required for configuration, not for usage. We provide a systray for quick access to commonly used features." }-

This is very important to me, all GUI´s should be accessible as quickly as possible. Compare it with SBIE (for example), it will show up in less than a second! Seriously, this is reason enough why I wouldn´t use SS. This is also the reason why I haven´t touched Firefox in months (slow startup time). :gack:

-{ Quote: "How does Sandboxie work differently?" }-

You can select "run sandboxed", and the app will run isolated. If you want to make sure that a certain executable always run isolated, you can put it inside the virtualization folder.

-{ Quote: "In the context of what SafeSpace is for, I don't feel this is an important feature. Could you expand on why you feel this is necessary when browsing the web?" }-

Actually, this is the main reason why I´m using SBIE, it´s not only a HIPS, it´s also a nice virtualization tool. This way, you can safely install apps and check them out without the risk of screwing up your system. Of course not all apps will work correctly, but real extensive testing is done inside VM anyway.

-{ Quote: "don´t mind clicking on two classical HIPS prompts in real time on ur system" }-

Well, that´s a different thing, these alerts are here to warn me, it´s not about usability. And I have configured my HIPS in a way that I won´t get to see 2 alerts, most of the time. Of course I agree that classical HIPS can (and must) be improved a lot, to make them less noisy.

[Tidyup]

-{ Quote: "This is very important to me, all GUI´s should be accessible as quickly as possible. Compare it with SBIE (for example), it will show up in less than a second! Seriously, this is reason enough why I wouldn´t use SS. This is also the reason why I haven´t touched Firefox in months (slow startup time). :gack: " }-

So which features are missing from the Systray (which opens in less than a second)?

-{ Quote: "
You can select "run sandboxed", and the app will run isolated. If you want to make sure that a certain executable always run isolated, you can put it inside the virtualization folder.
" }-

So no real difference then :)

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "Actually, this is the main reason why I´m using SBIE, it´s not only a HIPS, it´s also a nice virtualization tool. This way, you can safely install apps and check them out without the risk of screwing up your system. Of course not all apps will work correctly, but real extensive testing is done inside VM anyway." }-

Why u insist to use SafeSpace for something for which it is not made?
-{ Quote: "
Well, that´s a different thing, these alerts are here to warn me, it´s not about usability. And I have configured my HIPS in a way that I won´t get to see 2 alerts, most of the time. Of course I agree that classical HIPS can (and must) be improved a lot, to make them less noisy." }-
U can take the clicks needed in SafeSpace also a way to warn u n remind you about what u are going to run inside SafeSpace.

It,s to be done just once after install and that,s all. I don,t know why u complain too much for such a minor thing. U have to do same with SBIE even.

[Rasheed187]

-{ Quote: "So which features are missing from the Systray (which opens in less than a second)?" }-

I have to admit, I must have missed this feature, but I will tell you one thing, I hate to access/configure stuff via some trayicon. Just give me the GUI, and make it fast! ;D

-{ Quote: "
Why u insist to use SafeSpace for something for which it is not made?" }-

I´m just giving ideas, it´s up to the developers what to do with it.

-{ Quote: "So no real difference then" }-

Wrong. Let´s give an example: I want to run Rootkit X inside SBIE---> right click---> select "run sandboxed". It will immediately run sandboxed. Now I want to run Rootkit X inside SS----> right click---> select "Protect with SS", and then I will have to double click it. It´s a small thing, but annoying to me.

[Tidyup]

SafeSpace has a 'Run in SafeSpace' option on the context menu of executables.

[Tidyup]

-{ Quote: "
I´m just giving ideas, it´s up to the developers what to do with it.
" }-

Don't get me wrong. I welcome any and all constructive feedback. I just need to understand the reasoning behind feature suggestions to make sure that we are solving a problem, and that it is relevant to the cause.


Best regards,

Kris.

[aigle]

Hi Kris! Any new version in plans?

Were you able to reproduce and iron out some opera problems, hangs in SafeSpace, if any?

[Trespasser]

I posted the same question about a new release yesterday over at their forum. The response I received was they are working on it but no definite date for release.

I've temporarily switched over to SafeSpace from Sandboxie due mainly to the exploit thread and am quite happy with its performance...opens up my browser (Firefox) really fast. Very impressed.

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "
I've temporarily switched over to SafeSpace from Sandboxie due mainly to the exploit thread " }-

SafeSpace is good but that should not be the reason IMO.

[Trespasser]

-{ Quote: "SafeSpace is good but that should not be the reason IMO." }-

Aigle,
The exploit thread has me slightly concerned (and the key word is "slightly"). I would expect I'm not the only Sandboxie user presently feeling this way. Besides this has given me an excuse to try SafeSpace again.

Later...

[Rasheed187]

-{ Quote: "SafeSpace has a 'Run in SafeSpace' option on the context menu of executables." }-

That´s strange, I can´t believe I´ve missed this, perhaps something went wrong with the installation or something. So you´re saying that there should be two SS context menu entries and it works exactly the same as SBIE? Can you post a screenshot please, TIA.

[TerryWood]

Hi all & Safespace

For the record on Win XPSP2 using Safespace + CPF & Defence+ & Avast Home

Opera takes 18 seconds to boot up

Firefox takes 17 seconds to boot up

Using Sandboxie

Opera = 4 secs

Firefox = 14 secs

Using Geswall

Opera = 3secs

Firefox = 12 secs

So Safespace is very slow on booting up browsers.

Page loading is also significantly slower than the other products.

BUT Safespace has an excellent set of features.

The slowness may be the killer for me unless the developers can speed it up?

Terry

[Dieselman]

The slowness was worse for me. SafeSpace actually made my whole system crawl and putting a box around everything is a feature I do not need.

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "Hi all & Safespace

For the record on Win XPSP2 using Safespace + CPF & Defence+ & Avast Home

Opera takes 18 seconds to boot up

Firefox takes 17 seconds to boot up

Using Sandboxie

Opera = 4 secs

Firefox = 14 secs

Using Geswall

Opera = 3secs

Firefox = 12 secs

So Safespace is very slow on booting up browsers.

Page loading is also significantly slower than the other products.

BUT Safespace has an excellent set of features.

The slowness may be the killer for me unless the developers can speed it up?

Terry" }-
How did u measure tyhe times? I remember such measurements done by me with a stop warch in the past and I did post the results at that time.

But I measured in two ways:

- Time of loading for first browser launch after booting the PC
- Time of loading for browser launch after reapeating few browser launches( allowing windows to prefetch it and thence making the time shorter)

[Matern]

The slowdowns were not the first point for me, becauce they are not to strong.
But on my machine SS seems to be incompatible with:
- Mamutu
- Threatfire
- CBOC
because the LauncherService from SS had an write error at shutdown.
I hope in the future Versions this will be better, because I like SS.

[TerryWood]

Hi Aigle

To answer your questions

1) My timings were NOT after bootup of computer

2) I took 4 stopwatch readings for each piece of software ( thus allowing prefetching) then averaged the times

To be fair there was not much difference between the average and the high and low for each software.

What is clear to me is that Safespace in concept is a fantastic piece of software. incorcorporating LUAs antikeylogger and sandboxing and is fairly easily configured.

Where it falls down is the need for .NET framework (this I understand is to allow a snazzy GUI) the performance slowdown relative to its competitors is dramatic.

At first I thought Artificial Dynamics had achieved the Holy Grail, but now I remain frustrated and disappointed that even with SafeSpace. if you want a well crafted piece of Software there is a penalty to pay in sluggish performance.

I await the arrival of the EQSecure sandbox to see how that performs since I am still looking for the holy grail.

ps as an aside the Sandboxie camp are still in denial about the "Delete Volume" test. They have convinced themselves there is no problem. So dont expect any changes soon.

Terry

[trjam]

SafeSpace seems to get sluggish as time goes by. I ran it for 3 weeks straight and my computers performance continued to go down. And yes, I purged quite often.

As far as Sandboxie and Delete Volume goes, there is good reason to think it isnt valid.

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "SafeSpace seems to get sluggish as time goes by. I ran it for 3 weeks straight and my computers performance continued to go down. And yes, I purged quite often.
" }-

Interesting. I have had the same feeling with Returnil ( but not DeepFreeze or Shadow Protect). Hopefully SafeSpace and Sandboxie will mature with time. I know that on faster modern machines lags are not so noticeable but alll the same I think they could become a little more invisible.

[Huupi]

-{ Quote: "SafeSpace seems to get sluggish as time goes by. I ran it for 3 weeks straight and my computers performance continued to go down. And yes, I purged quite often.

As far as Sandboxie and Delete Volume goes, there is good reason to think it isnt valid." }-

Tsuk took a week off,so we have to wait until he's back !:(

this is a weakness with the one man/one owner product.

[chris2busy]

what really bugged me about safespace is that when i open "my computer" (not the pc,the place where u can see the hdd,dvd drives e.t.c) i get a delay of about 20-30 sec for it to open..thats really annoying since i got 5 hdd and i need to manage files real often.

[Killtek]

I have SafeSpace and Avira Premium Security Suite running on Vista Ultimate 32 bit: 4GB{3GB} of memory and AMD X2 +4800, without noticeable slowdowns. No more than any other Web/HTTP scanner module out there that cause slower than normal web browsing. I'm quite impressed with SafeSpace's performance.

It really comes down to what your machine specs are.. So you can't make a blanket statement that SS is slow... It's slow for your specs. :)

[InVitroVeritas]

-{ Quote: "(...)
It really comes down to what your machine specs are.. So you can't make a blanket statement that SS is slow... It's slow for your specs. :)" }-

I've to admit that I'm slightly surprise by other's comment about SS performance, since I didn't experience any noticable slow down when I tried it myself ; granted, it was only for a fortnight test, but then I installed it on two modest machines : an Athlon 1900 with 512mo, and a (now deceased) 1600 with 256mo (and a resident AV).

[chris2busy]

i got core duo at 3,2ghz and 3gb ram..thats not low specs at all..still the only slowdown i ever get with SS is the part i talked about before..light as feather to the rest parts..